Police prevent neighbour from saving family trapped in blaze

[Stupeo]

Ive just come across this on the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article59...

At a house fire in Doncaster, police stopped neighbours from risking their *own* lives to save a family who was trapped in a house blaze.

“When a family is burning to death in front of your eyes, rules should go out of the window – especially with kids. Everybody wanted to try and help.”

If i was in that position as one of the neighbours, the copper would've got a smack and i'd have tried my best. Or atleast i would like to think i would.

[HUW JONES]

..."HEALTH AND SAFETY"..FFS..Mind you they let someone drown recently for same reason...why am I not surprised.

[Mrs Grumpy]

Bit OT maybe - but just read this priceless comment on the article:

[i]Why didn't people just tell the Plod to butt out?!

I saw a program on TV about British policing where a lad was arrested for swearing at a policeman. Since when was swearing at someone an offence? Given that the policeman was his employee in effect, I think he should just have sacked him.

Ele, Washington, [/i]

[forza whites]

Similiar thing happened in the NW quite recently....

Young boy drowning in some lake/reservoir (Near Wigan), 2 x PCSO's turned up and WATCHED!! ..well to be fair to them they did call the Emergency services...the boy was dead.

Apparently their 'training' is not to get involved and call for help!

Just because these muppets are in a Flourescent Jacket, doesn't mean they cannot help!

Humanity v Common Sense v Flourscent jacket

God help us

Edited by forza whites on Monday 30th March 12:46

Edited for accuracy!

Edited by forza whites on Monday 30th March 12:47

[CommanderJameson]

<devil's advocate>
The police have a responsibility to preserve life and limb at the scene, including that of onlookers and would-be rescuers. If the officer concerned had made an assessment that the outcome of 2 people going into the house to rescue 3 people would be 5 corpses, why is he then wrong to prevent those 2 people from attempting a rescue?
</devil's advocate>

Just a thought.

Personally, I'm undecided. I can see why the police made the decision they did; however, is it not a right for us to risk our lives as we see fit (after all, jumping out of aeroplanes and participating in motorsport are both legal activities with a very real risk of a messy death), within the confines of the law?

I wonder how the families, of those who were prevented from attempting a rescue, feel? Conflicted, I should think; guilt and relief combined.

Edited by CommanderJameson on Monday 30th March 12:47

[thinfourth2]

forza whites said:

Similiar thing happened in the NW quite recently....

Young boy drowning in some lake/reservoir (Near Wigan), 2 x PCSO's turned up and WATCHED!! ..well to be fair to them they did call the Emergency services...the boy was dead.

Apparently their 'training' is not to get involved and call for help!

Just because these muppets are in a Flourescent Jacket, doesn't mean they cannot help!

Humanity v Common Sense v Flourscent jacket

God help us

Edited by forza whites on Monday 30th March 12:46

Edited for accuracy!

Edited by forza whites on Monday 30th March 12:47

Will this be the case where two PCSO's turned up to a lake and could not see any sign of the kid who had last been seen in the water half an hour ago or has there been another similarly badly reported incident

[Stupeo]

stuthemong said:

CommanderJameson said:

I wonder how the families, of those who were prevented from attempting a rescue, feel? Conflicted, I should think; guilt and relief combined.

No.

Probably guilt, guilt and more guilt. I see not where any relief comes in?

I imagine they are playing over scenarios where they supress the officers first, before going to the rescue, and are wondering why they didn't 'listen' to thier concience telling them to do that at the time.... rather than standing there watching a family burn.

Yep, i know i would be. I imagine the guilt of watching someone dying and being forced to do nothing is quite a lot to bear.

[s3fella]

I'd have told plod to fxxk right off if I thought I had a chance to help. And I speak as someone that entered a burning house in our street once to resuce a living being, (well a gecko actually!) I was surprised how dense the smoke was but got in and out in one piece with the melted plastic cage and gecko all OK!

Sounds like the neighbours had a lot of courage and a willingness to help their friends. Plod is trained more in elf and safrty than using their balls nowadays I am afraid.

Very Sad.

[Nolar Dog]

I can see this from both sides.

If I thought I was able to help someone trapped then I would like to think I'd do whatever I could and wouldn't want someone telling me I couldn't go in.

However, it's quite possible that article would be reporting a fire victim and a dead hero if the policeman hadn't intervened.

The less people at risk, the better I think.

[Fidgits]

CommanderJameson said:

<devil's advocate>
The police have a responsibility to preserve life and limb at the scene, including that of onlookers and would-be rescuers. If the officer concerned had made an assessment that the outcome of 2 people going into the house to rescue 3 people would be 5 corpses, why is he then wrong to prevent those 2 people from attempting a rescue?
</devil's advocate>

Just a thought.

Personally, I'm undecided. I can see why the police made the decision they did; however, is it not a right for us to risk our lives as we see fit (after all, jumping out of aeroplanes and participating in motorsport are both legal activities with a very real risk of a messy death), within the confines of the law?

I wonder how the families, of those who were prevented from attempting a rescue, feel? Conflicted, I should think; guilt and relief combined.

Edited by CommanderJameson on Monday 30th March 12:47

I completley agree with what CJ has said... summed up my thoughts and feelings..

[Cotty]

CommanderJameson said:

<devil's advocate>
The police have a responsibility to preserve life and limb at the scene, including that of onlookers and would-be rescuers. If the officer concerned had made an assessment that the outcome of 2 people going into the house to rescue 3 people would be 5 corpses, why is he then wrong to prevent those 2 people from attempting a rescue?
</devil's advocate>

Just a thought.

Personally, I'm undecided. I can see why the police made the decision they did; however, is it not a right for us to risk our lives as we see fit (after all, jumping out of aeroplanes and participating in motorsport are both legal activities with a very real risk of a messy death), within the confines of the law?

I wonder how the families, of those who were prevented from attempting a rescue, feel? Conflicted, I should think; guilt and relief combined.

I agree with this

The police had probably seen more fires than the bystanders, perhaps they had made an assesment that the people inside were beyond saving and were preventing further injuries/deaths.

What would people be saying about the police if they stepped aside, let people into the building and they died.

Edited by Cotty on Monday 30th March 13:05

[williamp]

I do think the police did the right thing. They almost certainly were thinking straight, ans its probable that the bystanders were not. As for the poster going into a burning building to rescue a gekko. Was it really worth it?

[308mate]

First rule of being a 1st aider is to make sure you dont put yourself and risk and add the possibility of further injury or even more work for incoming emergency services.

My pick is that the coppers have seen more fires than the neighbours and were better placed to asses their chances.

What about the case of the guy who drowned trying to save the lady who drowned whilst trying to save her dog that jumped into a reservoir?

Being the most heroic guy in the morgue wont help your wife and kids.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Health & Safety....gota love it.

Incidently, if someone is drowning and an onlooker just watches, then they aren't liable for anything, but if he tried to save the drowning person, all of a sudden the onlooker takes on liabilities. How great the justice system is


I'd love to have seen this headline and the response it would have got;

"Man arrested for trying to save neighbour's life"


Wouldn't suprise me at all.

[s3fella]

williamp said:

I do think the police did the right thing. They almost certainly were thinking straight, ans its probable that the bystanders were not. As for the poster going into a burning building to rescue a gekko. Was it really worth it?

Yes it was.

How are Police more trained to assess a fire than a member of joe public? If a fire officer refused them entry, so be it, but Plod...? Have you had cause to call the police recently? When they bother to turn up, they send some spotty twit who I would not trust to cook me a pizza!

Sorry, but they are not specialists, some cops are, but regular plod is just thinking of his career, not the lives of the poor sods he is there to help.

BTW, where was Systemparanoia and his Proton when they needed him...!??!!?;)

Edited by s3fella on Monday 30th March 14:09

[g_attrill]

A couple of years ago a retired chap sued the police after he was arrested while rescuing items from his house - he sued but lost:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/6939275.stm

[jmorgan]

Going to be hard to second guess from an emotive report in a newspaper. But from the reports in the link, one chap mentions they could not get a ladder up as flames were coming out the ground floor window.

[siscar]

Why are people so quick to make a judgement based on a newspaper article? From that article it is just as likely that the police did the right thing and stopped more people being killed than that they did the wrong thing and stopped a rescue. If you weren't there you can't make a judgment on it.

[Parrot of Doom]

The neighbours may have been willing to risk their lives but by doing so they would also be risking the lives of the Firemen who would no doubt have to go in and rescue them, or pull their charred corpses from the ruins.

From the sound of the report the ground floor was inaccessible, so you'd have just ended up with a lot more seriously injured/dead people.

[Tony*T3]

forza whites said:

Similiar thing happened in the NW quite recently....

Young boy drowning in some lake/reservoir (Near Wigan), 2 x PCSO's turned up and WATCHED!! ..well to be fair to them they did call the Emergency services...the boy was dead.

Apparently their 'training' is not to get involved and call for help!

Just because these muppets are in a Flourescent Jacket, doesn't mean they cannot help!

Humanity v Common Sense v Flourscent jacket

God help us

Edited by forza whites on Monday 30th March 12:46

Edited for accuracy!

Edited by forza whites on Monday 30th March 12:47

"EDITTED FOR ACCURACY" - you are having a laugh arent you? the child was already dead and not sploshing around in the water waving to them for help.

Police evidence to inquest said:

...had been under the water for some time and there was no indication where he was in the lake, which was the size of a football pitch.....

Two fishermen that rescued his sister couldnt find him in the lake.

These two have been tried and found guilty by bad reporting.